Instead of asking how much measures to address homelessness cost, we should be asking how much does homelessness itself cost. All the research, all the financial modelling that’s been done on this, comes up with pretty stark conclusions. It is always cheaper to prevent homelessness than to let it happen. It is always cheaper to rapidly resolve homelessness than to let it persist. The longer somebody is homeless, the more costs rise and support needs become higher. It’s usually cheaper to house and provide support for the most problematic individuals—you know, the stereotypical drug addict with complex needs—than it is to leave them to sleep rough.

The research on this has been very extensive, so much so that the United States—a country not known perhaps for its generous social safety net—has come to the conclusion that supporting Housing First projects is the way forward, bearing in mind that the health-related costs of homelessness are lower in the US, because the entitlements to healthcare for those without insurance are much lower. But this was illustrated very well by the author Malcolm Gladwell, who told the story of one homeless person, Murray, about whom local police were quoted as saying,

‘It costs us one million dollars not to do something about Murray.’

He came to the conclusion that giving homeless people apartments and support was cheaper than not housing people. There are academic studies to back that up. A study by the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program tracked 119 of their chronically homeless clients and found that each of them was taken to the emergency room, on average, 36 times per year.

Closer to home, Crisis modelled four scenarios and calculated the costs of resolving each case versus the costs of not resolving them and letting somebody become homeless. In each of those cases, the savings for preventing or rapidly resolving homelessness outweighed the costs of letting it happen by a minimum of 3:1 and up to as much as 14:1.

The financial benefits of preventing homelessness will be spread across the public sector, but it is important to point out that whilst local government shares in those savings, the initial financial outlay on preventing and rapidly resolving homelessness actually largely does fall on local authorities and the social security system. So, we have to acknowledge that local authorities must be supported to prevent homelessness. I’m afraid that cutting their budgets won’t work; that’s why, for example, Plaid Cymru, as we heard from Leanne Wood, has prioritised the Supporting People grant in budget negotiations on three separate occasions.